It is well enough that
people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system,
for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow
morning.

Henry Ford

Power Produced into Oversupply Reduces the Price of Power While Purchasing Power Increases because Power Reduces the Cost of Production. Joe's Law

HEADLINES

Update: Oct 29rd 2013 - 249 days left until Liberty Day
July 4th 2014

I wrote the following on the National Liberty Alliance meetup page.

I do not now associate myself with either Masters of Slaves. My parents
never did, they taught by example. I have never associated myself with
Masters or Slaves. I never will. I will always find a way to separate
myself from such nonsense. If that cannot be understood, then I see a
serious problem. Clay (if I remember his name right) tried to help bring
to light a serious error, an error I see too. If I were standing on a
fluid foundation I'd welcome the generous help offered to inform me of
my perilous position.

I can explain in detail here, where I have already done so here, again.

There is a highly productive (competitive) advantage for the Federation over the Republic form of government.

The FORCE that FORCES that highly competitive advantage is the FORCE of individual intelligent and moral choice.

The Republic, by design, is MONOPOLISTIC, meaning a precise meaning, and
not having an ambiguous or fluid meaning, as a Republic enforces the
end of competition as there can no longer be any challengers offering a
competitive form of government. Once a Republic becomes one, it will
last for as long as it can manage to destroy competition, and once it
can no longer destroy competition, the Republic falls.

A Federation, on the other hand, is similarly, by not exactly, disposed of: indirectly.

A number of Republics join voluntarily into a Federation, therefore all
but the very last Republic must fall, or secede, before the Federation
falls.

If there remains to be two Republics, and those two Republics
voluntarily associate into a Federation, then the Federation remains in
FORCE.

Here is where John at the meetup could have listened and could have learned something valuable - perhaps.

Gerard, similarly, may have been able to listen, and learn.

The concept of divide and conquer, having the defenders divided up, made
weaker, arguing among themselves, is not, I repeat NOT, the concept of
division of POWER.

Divide and Conquer is OFFENSIVE FORCE applied upon targeted (innocent)
victims by Masters seeking Slaves, or Masters of Slaves seeking to
weaken the defensive POWER of the Slaves.

Division of DEFENSIVE FORCE, or "Separation of Powers," is NOT the same
thing as Divide and Conquer (OFFENSIVE FORCE) whereby the voluntary sum
total of volunteers find ways to keep their DEFENSIVE POWER divided
into DEFENSIVE AUTONOMOUS INDEPENDENT SELF-SUFFICIENT, and COMPETITIVE
(NOT ANTAGONISTIC), UNITS.

Where is this best seen as a competitive force for the preservation of DEFENSIVE POWER?

The American Revolutionary Army BEFORE the Monopolists infected that
Voluntary Force with their Master/Slave DOGMA and their Master/Slave
DICTATES and their Master/Slave ENSLAVEMENT of the Volunteers into
CONSCRIPTS.

Quote:Washington Transforms the Army In June of
1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and
elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the
American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his
tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing
militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor
did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather
than external; it was directed against the American army
as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of
liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and
democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set
out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a
libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and
despotically ruled statist force after the familiar
European model.His primary
aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit
of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of
the militia were elected by their own men, and the
discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from
forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European
armies of the period. The officers often drew little more
pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions
of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence,
officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the
soldiery. This New England equality horrified
Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.To introduce
a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on
distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with
minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it:
"New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is
taking place, and great distinction is made between
officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep
it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp
out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon
them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan
unfeasible.

At least as
important as distinctions in decoration was the
introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by
Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates,
and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress
insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers
considerably higher than that of the rank and file.In addition
to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army,
Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual
responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe
and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers
whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct
for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and
girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy
floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington
considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had
the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum
number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous
number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.
I have done my own research into how Military Formations work, in
particular the German Air-force during World War II, and the work done
by the American pilot named John Boyd.

The MYTH that the German Soldiers (airmen included) where robotic
followers of orders placed into a rigid hierarchy is as false as any case
where the actual point of fact was such that the method by which the
German Military remained very effective was a method similar to a Free
Market. The term meritocracy may help explain how such a METHOD, which
may seem MAD, whereby the METHOD to the MADNESS was a METHOD by which
the most effective among the members of the group were earning their way
into leadership positions in the group.

In particular, the German airmen were led into battle not by the highest
ranking German soldiers but by the soldiers who proved to be the most
efficient, most effective, at that position of leadership.

The concept is not new, not earth shattering news, and in our own
Military there is the case of John Boyd whose example of the same
meritocracy might illustrate, or educate, those needing to know.

Returning to the concept of Republic VERSUS Federation there can be a
relative comparison done, from many angles of view, as to how one works
compared to the other one, in either Defense or Offense, and therefore
in either Independence or Dependence.

An invading army of conscripts and mercenaries land in New York, New
York as this army of Aggression seeks to enslave the so called Rebels
and Insurgents, as the King wishes, so that these conscripts must obey,
without question, those orders that please the King, and these
mercenaries must obey those same orders if these mercenaries want to
collect their own profits, their own pay, their own investments.

On the land where the English Invaders of War for the Profit of the Few,
war that is aggressive, war that is paid for by the targeted victims
called Rebels and Insurgents, and their families pay dearly too, on that
land, of those free, the order of battle was MANEUVER WARFARE.

Did you read the book I offered as a book that you should read? Did you read the book titled BOYD?

No?

You are now set to argue with me on this point?

The so called Rebels were Volunteers who Volunteered to stop farming,
stop making a living, and instead of making those earnings, those
profits, they banded together into Voluntary Defensive Military Bands,
something that was still COMMON KNOWLEDGE among the Frontiersmen,
Settlers, and something perfected through the HELP of the Native
Population, whereby the ART OF WAR is a well sharpened knife, sharpened
through use, sharpened through practice, sharpened through Trial and
Error.

Try if you will to enslave soldiers and hire murderers for profit and
try as you will to inspire them to TRUST each other in battle, try as
you might to do so, you might find out how the concept of MIGHT MAKES
RIGHT falls apart, even when your INVOLUNTARY forces outnumber (a larger
MOB intending to RULE by aggressive force), tray as you MIGHT, to order
those slaves and those mercenaries to FIGHT, those same conscripts and
mercenaries may find their TOOLS and there METHODS unable to meet the
competitive challenge of Volunteers fighting for Liberty.

Why?

As soon as the Assembled MASS of conscripts and mercenaries are ORDERLY
FORMED into a band of marchers like a Marching Band in a parade, is as
soon as the many divisions of divided autonomous units hiding in places
of advantage, and cover, use their advantage to cut the Marching Band
of Criminals down.

You may not see the point, but why not? Your eyes are fogged over, you are certainly not stupid.

A number of Constitutionally Limited States MIMIC, in point of fact, the
concept of a Voluntary Army of Volunteers Volunteering to Defend
Liberty against a larger Marching Band of Monopoly Driven Obedient
Slaves who are "just following orders without question," as that
MONOPOLY Driven Obedient Marching Band of Slaves being driven by those
Masters is that Consolidated Government where instead of many
Constitutionally Limited States (Republics themselves) Volunteering to
be a Federation Defending Liberty, instead of that DIVIDING, there is
instead an INVOLUNTARY association created in the form of a Monopoly of
ONE so called Republic.

The members of the convention from the States, came there under
different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly
the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the
convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of
delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly
instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the
States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of
confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to
regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to
affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the
whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule
extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen
in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a
circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea,
that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the
others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded
freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own
and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to
give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely
solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire,
that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of
resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of
any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and
obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections
were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of
suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and
necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a
declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to
an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and
informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be
used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue
influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every
possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might
arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered
the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of
slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a
government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and
servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might
be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the
world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of
being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but
we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we
opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge
between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free
States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could
submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which
might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without
proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were
threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never
should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on
another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them
to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger
to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and
the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear.
Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every
sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and
raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there
any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case;
but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we
should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those
ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of
the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were
treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one
reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when
they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its
members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never
trust another convention.
That was in reference to the so called Con Con, which was not originally
advertized as a Constitutional Convention, it was the Victorious Group
(Nationalists/Monarchists/Slave Traders/Central Bankers) who wrote that
false history.

During the so called ratification (Usurpation) those Founding Fathers on
the side of Liberty (as opposed to the so called Founding Fathers
working for England/Monarchy/Consolidation/and Monopoly Central Banking)
spoke out, blowing the whistle as they were able to do, despite the
effective efforts by the so called "Federalists" stirring up The Mob of
Public Opinion with their "Federalist Papers" which turned out to be
Campaign Promises to be quickly broken as soon as those same
"Federalists" created and then commanded their version of Despotism.

quote
Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the
present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and
no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first
hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of
this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the
confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This
power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of
controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of
converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated
Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has
hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally
the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit
to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will
they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent
powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The
General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more
powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the
former.
That brings my effort here to offer a competitive viewpoint back to the
principle of Dividing the Forces of Defense into
Competitive/Independent/Voluntary/Units INSTEAD of Consolidating all the
Competitive/Independent/Voluntary/Units into one Involuntary, single,
non-competitive, monopoly, of ONE so called Republic.

1.
A so called Republic of ONE that acts no different than any other
Despotism, as it, this so called Republic sets to destroy all
competition and it does so immediately upon become ONE FORCE that has
ONE Duty, which is to Defend itself, and that is the only thing that it
does, ever, each time it is tried.

2.
A working Federation whereby the divided (separation of powers)
autonomous units are working to prove to each other divided, autonomous
units, which unit is more competitive compared to each other unit, as to
how best Defend Liberty.

This is not my exclusive understanding based upon my own inventive, adaptive, mind.

Quote:Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of
democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For
example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for
its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this
venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the
overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious
other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into
account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a
disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the
provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans
and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284
million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition
among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet
should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using
again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of
Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of
health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation
to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate,
would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if
enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to
abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its
tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to
emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less
likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without
competition from other units of government,the national government would
have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the
objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and
competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the
modification of failed national programs less likely.

In that same book, where Madison turned his coat from Red to Blue there are these competitive words:"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed
a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By
funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside
a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an
annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the
government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on
Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large
figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be
avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which
the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established
confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of
money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national
debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5
percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and
planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed
enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of
the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be
paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans
prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the
perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman
farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed
Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress
to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that
because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive
and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used
by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury
soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled
Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the
Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
How could the Nationalists/Monarchs/Central Bankers manage to maintain
their Fraud (central bank) and their Extortion Racket (direct taxation
of all the victims in the former Federation) when the victims invent
their own money in competition with the Fraud money produced by the
fraudulent Federalists?

They (the so called "Federalists") could not maintain a Central Banking
Monopoly if the Slaves invent ways to NOT BE SLAVES to a money fraud.

Making money at home (whiskey) had to be CRUSHED.

How did Hamilton and the Central Banking subsidiary of The Bank of
England managed to CRUSH the money competitors in the former Federation
of American Constitutionally Limited States?

Hamilton unleashes the Dogs of War in the form of a CONSCRIPTED army of
Slaves to then take that National Army of Aggression for Profit, invade a
former Constitutionally Limited Republic of Pennsylvania, so as to
collect a Tax on Whiskey payable in Gold?

George Mason was absolutely accurate in his warning concerning Direct Taxes being enforced by a Monopolistic National Despotism?

Out with the English Dogs of War collecting taxes for the Central Bank
of England and in with the new Dogs of War collecting taxes for a
subsidiary of the Central Bank of England?

And "we the people" are now regaining our Spirit of Liberty so as to
support the same thing: A Monopolistic Nation State dominating former
Constitutionally Limited Republics?

Quote:
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between
England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I
shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to
lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions.
The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the
violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of
tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts
of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors
invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the
bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit
of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our
arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us
easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated
ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that
a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the
mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the
reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee,
supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the
avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in
our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth
better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating
contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or
arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains
sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen!
Why would we be so stupid as to gain Liberty only to then give it up for a song and dance routine?

"For Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' was naturally not to be pursued
by the individual but by the polis."

I see a root falsehood in that sentence. I am not claiming that there
are people who "believe" such lies, but many people allow their thinking
to be driven by such lies, perhaps it is a form of insanity.

The root falsehood is such that the idea of creating a THING to be held
accountable for the actions of individual people just so happens to be
very convenient for those individuals who perpetrate the worst crimes
beyond human imagination upon the largest numbers of people beyond
accurate human calculation.

So the root falsehood just so happens to work very good at covering up
the crimes of the worst human beings ever to disgrace the human gene
pool, so my thinking is such that the connection between the root
falsehood and the actual criminals themselves is not a coincidence.

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St
Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of
original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The
Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were
good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses
(I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to
display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who
play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage
something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of
the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat
to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of
his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social
organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can
only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Note: "...the aim of the state..."

A State is a Legal Fiction. Rather than listing all the people, all the
individuals, each one, name by name, on a list, rather than that, there
is a Legal Fiction used to identify all those people in that "State" in
FACT.

So the use of that FACT, the use of that Legal Fiction is merely a
convenience, an economic adaptation, a competitive way to convey
meaning.

I can say California when I want to point toward all those people in
California, and I don't have to list each name, so I use a Legal
Fiction.

The root falsehood occurs when I blame a criminal invasion of another
area where people live: blame is focused on that Legal Fiction, not on
the actual criminals.

I can say, that the aim of California, was to destroy and enslave those
people on that list of people who were once alive in Mexico, who are now
all dead, or those who survived are now used as slaves by California.

No one in California, no one on the list of names, are held accountable,
because California is responsible for murdering and enslaving all those
innocent people.

How convenient can it get for those who profit from the aims of the State?

I do not sign onto the concept that the root falsehood just mentioned above is in any way a coincidence.

I recognize the fact that there are very evil people alive today, and
very evil people alive throughout human history, whereby root falsehoods
like the one just mentioned, are known to be falsehoods by those
specific people on a list of people who have actual names, like, for
example, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

Names alone are incapable of telling the fully disclosed accurate
account of what actually was done by the will power of that specific
name of that specific individual.

"Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented."

I see accurate perception in that sentence, a root of factually based
meaning. I can explain, even though I do not think, and I do not
believe, and I do not trust, that my competitive offer of my viewpoint
will be listened to, or agreed upon.

The human species is created in such a form as to statistically recreate
new individual examples of human beings whereby the individual is
created with a human conscience; therefore the species is hard wired
(figuratively) with the means to produce good life.

You can, of course, take or leave my offer of a competitive viewpoint concerning the sentence quoted.

"All this means that Plato's and Aristotle's thought was statist and
elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated 'classical'
(Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian
and medieval thought."

I see no reason to call criminals anything other than criminals, so your
use of the root word State, to point toward criminals, and then call
those criminals "statist" is non-competitive in my view. You help the
criminals cover up their crimes, in my opinion, in each case where the
criminals are pointed at, and the criminals are then called something
other than criminals.

You can continue helping the criminals all you want, what business is it of mine?

"Classical 'natural law' philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the 'natural rights' of the
individual which may not be invaded by man or by government."

I am not inspired to argue with your limited sources of historical
information that you use to form your conclusions. I trust that you will
not accept any alternative sources of information as being competitive
sources of information; therefore there is no point in me offering
competitive sources of information.

Getting past your versions of history that may, or most likely are not,
based upon accurate history, I find the following words to be inspiring a
competitive response from me to you, or to anyone else who may be
reading our conversation (thankfully one that is not accelerating into
character assassination):

"The arts are frowned on, and the life of the citizens was to be policed
to suppress any dangerous thoughts or ideas that might come to the
surface."

My response to that sentence is to offer in return a quote from a very valuable source of words.

_____________________________________________________
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless
onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not
live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily
interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the
deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood,
falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed
violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his
PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no
sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the
rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without
descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not
always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it
demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only
complicity in falsehood.

And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in
falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let
it even reign in the world - but not with my help. But writers and
artists can achieve more: they can CONQUER FALSEHOOD! In the struggle
with falsehood art always did win and it always does win! Openly,
irrefutably for everyone! Falsehood can hold out against much in this
world, but not against art.
_____________________________________________________

Here, following, again is the root falsehood of holding a thing accountable for the actions of individual human beings:

"...of the state's positive law over the natural or divine order..."

I don't buy such nonsense; no thanks.

I'm not accusing anyone of "believing" such nonsense, I merely see the
nonsense in the sentence, so I point it out, and I reject it.

"By the beginning of the seventeenth century, royal absolutism had emerged victorious all over Europe."

Again, no thanks, there were people, actual people, and those actual
people managed to perpetrate very evil crimes by hiding their crimes
behind false "good" reasons, or whatever, I'm not buying into the game
of blaming the actual crimes done by the actual people on a nebulous
entity, or thing, known as "absolutism," however I can entertain the
idea that there was, and is, a person, or group of individuals, who
invent, and reinvent, and then use, and then reuse, the concept of
perpetrating crimes behind a false front known as Brand X (absolutism)
or Brand Y (nihilism), so long as it works to accomplish the job (hide
the criminals perpetrating the crime) the flavor of the false front, or
the color of the false flag, is incidental.

The bodies still pile up even after the false flag is changed from red to blue and then back to red again.

"... state privilege..."

Here again there is the use of a Legal Fiction which is fine, so long as
it is understood that there is no such THING, therefore a state cannot
gain, or be given, or lose, or have taken away, any such thing as
privilege, while, on the contrary, as a point of demonstrable fact, the
actual people perpetrating crimes, and calling their crimes "privilege"
happens in time and place, sometimes the victims of those crimes
perpetrated by those criminals may actually be led to believe the lie
too: believing that crimes are "privileges" taken by a thing known as a
"state".

I don't believe such nonsense.

Criminals perpetrate crimes and they have a routine going whereby the
criminals hide their crimes behind false fronts and false flags.

Which false fronts and which false flags work best; what qualities of
the front or the flag are best to suit the purpose of hiding the crimes?

"...alleged necessity for piling up bullion in a country..."

I'm not so fast at discrediting the practice of collecting things into a
central location if that is what you are doing with those words.

When criminals collect what they steal into a central location then the
discredit is shared by the thieves who perpetrate crimes and by the
victims for failing to defend against those crimes; there is no cause
(in my view) to discredit the practice of collecting things into a
central location.

____________________________________________________________
In fact, mercantilism was all of these things; it was a comprehensive
system of state building,state privilege, and what might be called
'state monopoly capitalism'.
_____________________________________________________________

If it is crime then I call it crime, I might call it "state monopoly
capitalism" if I wanted to help the criminals hide their crimes.

I don't.

"But state absolutism means that the state must and maintain allies
among powerful groups in the economy, and it also provides a cockpit for
lobbying for special privilege among such groups."

It, whatever name you want to parrot, or if you want to put an accurate
name on it, is crime, and it is not a new human (criminal) invention, so
I think I get the point.

"With SO MANY people that derive their “station in life” from the
government in these times it is virtually impossible to get people to
listen to these ideas, people dependent on the State will tune out
because they do not what to be accused of being part of the problem."

Here is where the "government shut down" routine can be understood
accurately instead of falsely. The criminals and their minions realize
that their game is up. The minions, or slaves, or cooperators who
cooperate in the process of perpetrating crimes upon their targeted
victims, the victims who always are the people who produce anything
worth stealing, find out (the minions find out), in real terms, that
their "hosts" (victims) can no longer afford to be connected to the
"parasites" (criminals and minions) and the realization comes in the
form of a sudden shock whereby the well runs dry. The Natural Law known
as the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, as the number of criminals
being incorporated into the crime group grow too numerous to feed upon
the shrinking supply of victims (producers), and here at this time it
may be a good idea for the remaining producers to wise up, and learn
from that shocking realization that is being realized by those minions
in that criminal group.

A producer certainly "feels the pain" but perhaps not in the same way as
one of the minions may feel the sudden shock of having their gravy
train come to a sudden halt.

The competitive, voluntary, producer continuously looks for competitive
earning potential despite the sudden loss of a job, which is ongoing, as
the competitive, voluntary, producer may be constantly looking for a
better earning job, even while employment is currently producing income,
so the shock is not sudden, and the shock is not devastating - there is
no shock, it is business as usual within what still exists as "the
animated contest of freedom."

For a member of the criminal minions, those not at the top of the
criminal structure, the sudden loss of booty handed down from the more
powerful criminals to the lesser powerful criminals leaves the minion,
each one, leaves each minion, helpless, powerless, devastated, alone, in
deed, because of the nature of the criminal organization; which is
DEPENDENCY upon it (the criminals higher up), which is in turn a
DEPENDENCY upon the independent (voluntary and competitive) producers.

Here, a person can say, is the HOST group, right here, and "it" produces
though voluntary, free market (what remains of it in Liberty),
competition: meaning that there is a list of names of INDEPENDENT
producers working cooperatively and competitively (adaptively not
antagonistically) in a free market to produce more today than was here
yesterday, so there is an output which can be called surplus wealth,
earnings, property, profits, or booty, depending upon word choices
chosen to point out what now is where once there was nothing.

Here then is a criminal group, and "it" steals, meaning that there is a
list of names of DEPENDENT criminals who DEPEND upon the HOST group, and
who DEPEND upon the absolute necessity of the criminal group creating
ever greater lies, ever greater threats, and ever greater destructive
violence which is absolutely required in ORDER to maintain the
connection between the criminal group and the HOST group: whereby the
booty flows from the producers to the criminals and their minions.

So the most powerful criminals have figured out how to shock their
minions into a frenzy of feeding upon each other and such things are
exemplified with the current so called "government shut down" which can
be called a "government shut down" if you happen to believe in such
nonsense, while I call it what it is instead.

It is not a "government shut down" it is, in point of fact, a method by
which the more powerful criminals set their minions one against the
other, so as to reduce the numbers of minions being fed by their crime
organization once the (natural) Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, in
FACT, when the output of booty is not enough to feed the bloated numbers
of criminals and minions.

The concept is not only sound, it is legal, not arguably legal, it is legal in the true sense of the word, whereby law is a concept shared by people, throughout history, to be a voluntary association among volunteers who volunteer to find competitive methods of maintaining Liberty.

Liberty is a tough concept to convey to a well practiced lair, or a minion in the service of criminals.

Criminals know what Liberty is, and it is known by criminals as something to be feared, something that must be destroyed, if crime is going to pay well.

My suggestion offered to the Topic starter is to start learning more about ancient common law, which is not the FALSE Common Law which is a counterfeit version of the original.

Anyone who becomes confused about common law (the real thing which is synonymous with Liberty) is probably a victim of the efforts of criminals whereby criminals have produced many false versions of common law, so as to censor, block, crush, destroy, render powerless, the actual efforts of volunteers who volunteer to defend liberty in competitive ways that expend the least cost yet remain to be effective ways to defend Liberty.

I've found more than one source of information that serves to be a competitive example of evidence documented how common law (the original employment of Trial by Jury based upon sortition) became a false version, or a Usurpation, whereby the voluntary association became an Involuntary one.

Quote:
________________________________________________________________
Before 1066 all laws were local and enforced in the manorial, shire and hundred courts. Under the Normans, Royal Courts began to emerge from the King's Council (Curia Regis). These did not take over the jurisdiction of the local courts immediately, but over a long period of time the local courts lost jurisdiction over cases and thus lost income. A practice was started of sending judges around the country to hold assizes (or sittings) to hear cases locally. This enabled the judges, over a period of roughly 200 years, to take the best local laws and apply them throughout the land, thus creating law which was `common to the whole country ie, common law.

Originally the King's Council carried out the three functions of state, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It dealt with all cases in which the King had a direct interest, like breaches of the peace. Eventually the courts split off from the Council and formed the main common law courts. The Court of Exchequer, which dealt with the collection of revenues, was the first to separate, in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). The Court of Common Pleas stayed in Westminster Hall to deal with disputes between individuals, while the King's Council travelled round the country. The Court of King's Bench separated sometime after 1230. Justices of the Peace (or magistrates) originated from a Royal Proclamation of 1195 creating 'Knights of the Peace' to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the law. They were later given judicial functions and dealt with minor crimes.

and

The Court of Equity (or Chancery) became very popular because of its
flexibility; its superior procedures; and its more appropriate remedies.
Problems arose as to the issue of injunctions: the common law courts objected to
the Chancellor issuing injunctions restraining the parties to an action at
common law either from proceeding with it or, having obtained judgement, from
entering it in cases where, in the Chancellor's opinion, injustice would result.
Consequently, a certain rivalry developed between the two courts and this came
to a head in the Earl of Oxford's Case (1616) 1 Rep Ch 1 in which the common law
court gave a verdict in favour of one party and the Court of Equity then issued
an injunction to prevent that party enforcing that judgement. The dispute was
referred to the King who asked the Attorney-General to make a ruling. It was
decided that in cases of conflict between common law and equity, equity was to
prevail. From that time on the common law and equity worked together, side by
side.

_________________________________________________________

Note the dates.

The following is a very important work done by Lysander Spooner (a person living in America who was later called an Anarchist):

Quote:
_______________________________________________________________________
FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
__________________________________________________________________

Note the date.

If you read the whole work done by Lysander Spooner you will be informed as to the methods by which the criminals retake control of Trial by Jury, turning a Voluntary Association into an Involuntary Association. Then you can see how free people are inspired to expend all the costs required to move their behinds from England to America, and they take with them the concept of Trial by Jury - based upon sortition.

Now, at this time, people have no place to run, and no place to hide, no place to go and start defending Liberty in a New World.